Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1546552
| From | Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node |
| Date | 2016-12-22 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sRhdT-563-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <sQwym-89-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQx1o-ys-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQK8h-Qv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQKBj-10r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQTuV-6O0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > FWIW, here's mine.. compiles and boots on a NUMA x86_64 machine. > > So I like how your patch is smaller, but your patch is also broken. > > First off, the whole contention bit is *not* NUMA-specific. It should > help non-NUMA too, by avoiding the stupid extra cache miss. > > Secondly, CONFIG_NUMA is a broken thing to test anyway, since adding a > bit for the NUMA case can overflow the page flags as far as I can tell > (MIPS seems to support NUMA on 32-bit, for example, but I didn't > really check the Kconfig details). Making it dependent on 64-bit might > be ok (and would fix the issue above - I don't think we really need to > care too much about 32-bit any more) > > But making it conditional at all means that now you have those two > different cases for this, which is a maintenance nightmare. So don't > do it even if we could say "screw 32-bit". > > Anyway, the conditional thing could be fixed by just taking Nick's > patch 1/2, and your patch (with the conditional bits stripped out). Yup. > > I do think your approach of just re-using the existing bit waiting > with just a page-specific waiting function is nicer than Nick's "let's > just roll new waiting functions" approach. It also avoids the extra > initcall. > > Nick, comments? > > Hugh - mind testing PeterZ's patch too? My comments about the > conditional PG_waiters bit and page bit overflow are not relevant for > your particular scenario, so you can ignore that part, and just take > PaterZ's patch directly. Right, I put them both through some loads yesterday and overnight: Peter's patch and Nick's patch each work fine here, no issues seen with either (but I didn't attempt to compare them, aesthetically nor in performance). Hugh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-20 00:00 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-20 01:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 03:40 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-12-20 14:00 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-20 18:40 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-20 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-21 09:10 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-21 09:40 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:40 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:10 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 21:00 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 03:10 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> - 2016-12-22 20:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 11:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 03:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:40 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 19:20 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:50 +0100
csiph-web